From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Rescuers article.
|Spike has taken over the management of this page. Children, it has passed beyond your ken. Themes of Hitler and anal rape are expunged and are not to return. Got it?|
I rewrote this article in its entirety on 30-Jan-10 by request. Now, the request was made by a user without logging on, the user elsewhere claimed to be one of Uncyclopedia's most notorious immature vandals, and he was banned from the site at the time. Nevertheless, he asked for it, and I gave it to him (to parrot the notorious courtroom testimony of a schoolteacher convicted of statutory rape of one of her students). The new version is better. The old version is not welcome, in whole or in part, even though I have removed the above template, which was at the top of the article for a week. So GTFO. Thank you. 23:11 6-Feb-10
edit The rewrite request
Moved here from my talk page
- Anything else while I am at it? Who the hell are you? and what made you think I take marching orders from an IP?
- Now, to answer your question, I just read Furby and even skipped to vote on VFD, as I don't know what the hell these things are and whether someone more in the know might enjoy the article. However, on Charlotte's Web and The Rescuers, I am a candidate, as I read the books a generation before someone decided to turn them into formula movies; and in the case of The Rescuers, I am one of probably very few who can make that statement. 22:44 29-Jan-10
Wow. Yes I've read Charlotte's Web in fourth grade now in eighteth seen all three movies, and both Rescuers movies, but I never read The Rescuers books by Mrs. Sharp. Also, even though I've read the Bambi book, I never read wikipedia:The Fox and the Hound (novel) despite seeing both of Disney's movies and am a fan of the first one. So, these movies are all formulaic? I love them all save the sequels, no one likes the sequels. Rescuers and Fox and the Hound are the most underrated Disney movies ever IMO plus these two and Charlotte's Web are the most underrated animated movies IMO. You know what, do you think maybe for all the books Disney's movies are based they should write something about the books and NOT the movies? I guess that's why no one ever votes keep on the VFD, they never saw/liked the movies. As these books and Fox and the Hound esspeaically are all different from the books maybe people at un care more about the books than the movies. 126.96.36.199 23:21, January 29, 2010 (UTC)
- That is a significant problem. I no longer own the books; I seem to remember having viewed The Rescuers, but that could have been thirty years ago. I would love to change the current emphasis of The Rescuers (namely, Hitler and anal rape) to do justice to the book (by which I mean to say, to do injustice to it). My take is that it is about class struggle and do-good-ism. (In a later Margery Sharp book, the duo seeks to aid not an orphan but a prisoner--but how are you so sure a prisoner is unjustly imprisoned--even if you live in a Porcelain Pagoda?) But, remembering the books better than the movies, I would inevitably add things that readers would perceive as inaccuracies. These would at least interfere with the humor. I've already read the Wikipedia entry, but it doesn't jog my memory, and I'm not going to buy a DVD just to do an Uncyclopedia rewrite correctly.
- The other risk is that, if you are in fact "TinkyWinkyIsGay" or one of his legendary sockpuppets, you will surely, just as I perfect the Uncyclopedia rendition, blank it incessantly. 01:55 30-Jan-10